"Immorality" and Social Change

Social conservatives sincerely believe that they are defending "morality" when they condemn practices such as Â birth control, women working outside the home, and same-sex marriage. Their view is that these practices are "immoral" because they threaten the fabric of society. They consider people who condone these social transformations to be fostering "immorality."

They are mistaken. They view change itself as threatening. They forget that society often changes for the better – that human progress is possible – and that if given the opportunity to pursue their hopes and dreams people can often make this a better world.

The habit of social conservatives to think that they are defending "morality" is evident in the hysteria that arose over the subject of same-sex marriage. According to some conservative leaders, Satan is walking the land because some people of the same gender love each so much they are willing to promise to be faithful to each other and to share everything they have. What blindness! Committed gay and lesbian couples actually contribute to the strength of our families, our communities, and our society. Anyone can see that! So why all the uproar over what should be a relatively peaceful transition to a new level of acceptance?

Opposition to same-sex marriage is simply stated and easy to understand. Same-sex marriage, says its opponents, "threatens the institution of marriage." Some opponents even claim that it is not possible to speak of "same-sex marriage" – that the phrase itself is a contradiction in terms, a physical and moral impossibility.

The opposition to same-sex marriage is not grounded in logic or reality. It is basedÂ simplyÂ on tradition. Cultural and religious traditions condemn loving relationships between persons of the same gender, so according to social conservatives the practice of same-sex marriage is "immoral."

Those who approve of same-sex marriage and other changes to society such as the responsible use of birth control or the liberation of women from gender-based roles do not consider themselves to be fostering "immorality." They do notÂ perceiveÂ themselves to be on the side of Satan or contradicting basic norms of what is good and right. They simply have a different way of telling right from wrong.

For example, liberals believe that whatever our cultural and religious traditions have been, people should not be treated differently unless they really are different. In accordance with this principle our society eventually came to the realization that racial discrimination is wrong. We learned that gender discrimination is wrong. And now we are figuring out that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong. We now know – and social science studies prove – that gay and lesbian couplesÂ love each other just as muchÂ andÂ are just as good at raising childrenÂ as heterosexual couples. There is no earthly reason to treat same-sex couples differently – and therefore it is wrong to treat them differently.

This same dynamic is at work on the Supreme Court of the United States. Some justices are beholden to "tradition" in their interpretation of the Constitution. They maintain that if a group of persons has been historically discriminated against, that alone is reason enough for the law to continue to treat them differently. Other justices define equality more broadly and more realistically. They adhere to the principle that "persons who are similarly situated must be treated alike," and that principle has been repeatedly invoked to protect groups such as blacks, women, and the disabled from laws that enforced and reinforced traditional stereotypes.

If you, dear reader, are a social conservative, I urge you to pause the next time you are tempted to condemn me or another liberal for fostering "immorality." Please consider the possibility that I may see myself in a different light, that I may have a different way of telling right from wrong, and that what you regard as "immoral" I regard simply as a step forward.

The study claims to show that gay couples are just as good at raising children, but it just isn't so by the numbers they provide. The gay parents studied are wealthier and more educated than the "cohabitating unmarried heterosexual" couples they are compared to. And of course the "traditional" married heterosexual couples raise children who do better in school than either group. Most of the study is couched within long passages making excuses for the gay couples' poor showing.

I've seen this sort of slippage in every gay marriage study I've looked at. I suspect they are most often conducted by gay studies sociologists whose mission in life is to build bridges between gays and "mainstream" society. It's machine science.

In any case, I haven't seen many folks claim you're immoral or attacking traditional morality in regard to your posts on this blog. I've seen many claim you prefer building dishonest arguments, like the strawman you build here, and that you're a partisan hack. Others attempt to create serious legal arguments, which you consistently refuse to engage no doubt because you've been proven wrong so often.

First there is the premise that we should not punish criminals or at least not punish them so severely. This can manifest itself in excusing crime because several things, including the criminals income or education level. As if the victim is somehow less robbed, raped or murdered. Some liberal judge can throw the book at them and give them a really long suspended sentence.

Then there is the liberal solution to illegal immigration. I will ignore the laws and bribe you with amnesty or citizenship and expect you to vote for liberal candidates.

Then there is the laundering of personal responsibility out of society. A systematic substitution of the father of the family with the federal government. Uncle Sam can bring home a paycheck, handle your medical needs, provide moral direction and tell you what is important about religion. (of course there is the bonus that we can blame this 'new family model' for any crimes committed, see first item)

Liberals form a circle and hand each other dishonest awards. Give the Dixie Chicks a Grammy for a rather unremarkable album because they embarrassed Bush. Give Al Gore and Michael Moore awards for slanted motion pictures because we like the politics. Give President Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for his actions in the first two weeks of his presidency, things must have gone exceptionally well at the inaugural balls.

What do the liberal dual standards tell us about morality? The misogyny nonsense is just the most recent example. What an outrage that Rush would say those things. But no one cared when comedians, talk show hosts and others said awful things about conservative women and the victims of Clinton's escapades.

What about all of those keeping racism alive and profiting from it? Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and others. I am not sure how this Trayvon Martin case will end up, but I do know how the Duke Lacrosse case ended up.

Moral people would have apologized after all of the unfounded allegations surrounding the shooting of Gabby Giffords.